==================== HES POSTING ==================== I have taken some time to reply to Ross Emmet's response to my criticism of relativism. The reason is that I want to broaden the discussion. Let me explain. The heart of my criticism of recent HES editorials and of Ross Emmet's implicit defense of them is simple. The editorials purport to give advice on how do the history of economics. Yet they shy away from defining (1) history, (2) ideas, and (3) economics. I ask only one thing: that before one gives such advice or makes judgments about a piece of work claiming to be in the subject "history of economic ideas," one ought to have a clear idea about the meaning of these terms. If one talks about contexts, styles and modes, rational reconstructions, etc, and at the same time has no clear idea of what these three words mean, only mere chance will make what one writes relevant to the history of economics ideas. My quarrel with the recent editorials and with what appears to be the predominant view among HESers is that they appear to have very little idea of the subject they claim to be writing about. An example is Mary Schweitzer's (11-14-96) argument that economics is what she has been taught that it was, accompanied by a potpourri of definitions with no opinion about which is best. The reason for my delay is that before I presented this argument, I wanted to rethink my own views on these matters. Do I have clear and definite definitions of these terms? And are these definitions defendable. If not, I have no business criticizing others. This project has taken a bit longer than I anticipated. The point I have raised is critical to the future development of the history of economics profession. If my view is correct, the current gatekeepers of this profession are inhibiting the development of the history of economic ideas. They are treating genuine advances in economic theory the same as genuine retrogressions. When I say that this point critical to the development of the history of economic ideas, I am not writing abstractions. Four reviewers of a recent paper I wrote about Herbert J. Davenport, two at HOPE and two at JHET, had similar comments (http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/subjecti/workpape/dav_valu). They criticized the paper on grounds that it fails to account for the historical context of Davenport's works and that it does not say enough about Davenport's contemporary colleagues and opponents. None of the four commented on my claim that the idea about which Davenport wrote was important in the progress of Austrian economics. Indeed, all wrote remarks to the effect that I was writing what Ross Emmet and others call "Whig history." I don't know how one can logically judge that a paper is a Whig history of an idea without evaluating the idea about which the history is written. But these reviewers did make judgments. Of course, I am not complaining about getting negative reviews. I have long since come to terms with this. Indeed, how can one legitimately complain about receiving opinions from reviewers who volunteer their time? True enough, the reviewers hold the keys to the gates of particular professions. But there are plenty of professions. And with the internet, who needs an academic profession, anyway? Nor am I the only one to face the gatekeepers. Greg Ransom drew our attention to the dispute between Steven Horwitz and Allin Cottrell in the most recent issue of JHET (Fall, 1966). One must be puzzled at the editorial decision to (a) publish Horwitz's piece and (b) allow criticism and response in the same issue of the journal. Such a decision would appear to be reasonable if there were some legitimate disagreement about the subject matter of the paper. However, the main disagreement seems to me to have been about how one should do the history of economic ideas. If the editor wants to have a forum on this subject, why not invite a set of papers? Or, if he/she prefers, why not wait until someone submits such a paper? I have completed my rethinking and have published a very preliminary version of my rethoughts on my home page in a paper entitled "What it Means to Be an Historian of Economic Ideas." It is available at the following web sites: http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/subjecti/workpape/histidea http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/subjecti/workpape/histidea If you do not have a browser, I would be happy to Email you a copy. Comments are welcome. Pat Gunning http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcome http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/welcome ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]